Customer Reviews

Remaking Micronesia

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Remaking Micronesia" is first of all a text that provokes a long-hard look at the ghetoization of the Pacific by US ideology and foreign policy; it is not for bureaucrats from Washington DC who think "upstreaming" veterans with fading memories out of Florida would help resolve issues of military occupation and Cold War rhetoric (this, in response to the first review on these pages). In there, David Hanlon not only uncovers a lot of the American two-facedness in its foreign policies, but he also reveals, although subtly, the two-facedness of islanders in politics as they have been silenced by their material comforts and the divide and rule nature of American colonialism. "Remaking Micronesia" points out ongoing colonialism particularly as it serves US interests even though the Cold War is over and Pacific islanders are no longer needed for nuclear and biological experimentation. I commend Hanlon for his courageous condemnation of human folly and for providing much needed knowledge on what and why the US was and continues to be interested in the Pacific. Pacific islanders, particularly the American islanders have been branded as lazy and irresponsible; Hanlon's study sheds light on why these misperceptions exist. The impact of US colonialism, both old and new, on the psyche and cultures of these people has been devastating, particularly as American bureaucratization and so-called good-will programs, including their Peace Corps, continue to benefit them financially more than the islanders they are purported to help. Grants from Uncle Sam are a drop in the bucket in the US budget and are returned to the US through planeloads of consultants island hopping through Microneisa. The average islander still tries to catch fish and plant taro on a daily basis.

Every Pacific islander should read Dr. Hanlon's "Remaking Micronesia" as should designers of US foreign policy and teachers teaching the Pacific. Hanlon's style is reminiscent of the island cultural icons and metaphors so it is very accessible to island scholars and those that have experienced places like Micronesia.

In _Remaking Micronesia: Discourses over Development in a Pacific Territory, 1944-1982_, David Hanlon examines the ideological construction of post-World War Two American economic development in "Micronesia," a geopolitical term he employs to represent the Caroline, Marshall, and Northern Mariana Islands. Hanlon asserts that the discourses of economic development (i.e., federally funded projects, agricultural studies, etc.) in the history of Micronesia's political relationship with the United States sought to "remake" the islands and islanders into a modern, monolithic American community. Hanlon argues convincingly through his discourse analysis of US military and federal documents, among other primary and secondary sources, that the rhetoric of "American development" ultimately served as a discursive strategy of manipulation which attempted to elide the underlying purpose of post-World War Two American imperialism in this region, that is, the militarization of Micronesia's lands, seas and peoples.

I found Mr. Hanlon's book a laborious read, to say the least. He uses incredibly long sentences. Picking one of many at random, I counted seventy words and 10 commas. The theme of the book seems to be one of conspiracy; the United States verses the people of Micronesia. His use of document sources is extensive, and much of what he concludes may or may not be true. However, I think his conspiracy theory might have been more convincing if he had made the effort to go beyond the documents, and sought out individuals still living who were very much a part of the U S. effort to administer the islands after World War II. Just as a for-instance, Capt. James B Johnson, USNR, Ret. lives in Florida. In the late 1940s and early 1950s he was the Naval Administrator for the Northern Mariana Islands, The Volcano Islands, and the Bonin Islands. He returned to the Saipan during the Trust Territory administration of the islands and served in a number of capacities as a civilian. I myself lived on Saipan for five years, doing my own research. Not once did I meet an individual who did not hold Capt. Johnson in the highest regard. I think if Hanlon had gone to Capt. Johnson and others like him for their in-put on his conspiracy theory he might have come away with a completely different appreciation for what was attempted in the early American administration of these islands. Bruce M. Petty, Fairfield, Ca.

There's some interesting history in this book, and even a little bit of decent analysis. Unfortunately, it's buried under several layers -- of bad academic writing, vaguely Marxist bafflegab about hegemony and "discourse", and the overpoweringly loud grinding of a couple of ideological axes. Hanson sees that Micronesia is a mess (which it certainly is), and manages to give us some vague idea of how it got that way. Insofar as it's possible to dig a thesis out of his mushy prose and rambling narrative, he blames Uncle Sam. That's fine -- there's certainly a case to be made for it -- but that's about as far as he gets. The US (and its colonial apparatus, the Trust Territory) is the villain of the piece, while the Micronesians are exploited, victims, oppressed. The book simply does not entertain the idea that the Micronesians might be in some measure responsible for their own situation. It also focusses on the more horrific failures of US administration there (of which there are, to be sure, no shortage) while ignoring the various successes, relative and qualified as they are. To give just the most obvious shortcoming, Hanson barely glances at the stupendously rapid economic development in the Northern Marianas Islands. In a book that's supposed to be at least tangentially about economic development, this is a striking omission.

Hanson devotes a long chunk of his final chapter to a critique of P.F. Kluge's _The Edge of Paradise_. Well, Kluge was not a historian, he had a lot of prejudices and blind spots, and his book had some serious problems (and it's getting pretty dated these days). But Kluge on his worst day could write rings around Hanson, and _The Edge of Paradise_ is not only far more readable than _Remaking Micronesia_, but it will (still) tell you much more about Micronesia.

Space prohibits me from taking apart Hanson's writing style in detail, but... well, it's bad. Long, turgid sentences in the passive voice, paragraphs that ramble around pointlessly, and painful attacks of academic-ese. Also, it's rather hard to figure out who this book is supposed to be read by. It assumes that the reader already knows the basic facts of recent Micronesian history, but then proceeds to give Hanson's interpretation of it. Anyone who takes an interest in Micronesia (there aren't many of us) probably already has strong opinions on the matter and will find this authorial voice rather off-putting.

In sum, this book is a muddled, badly written mess. I give it a couple of stars because it will be of interest to students of Micronesian development and history, but they should be prepared to wade through a lot of rhetorical mud to find a few nuggets of interest here.